There was some interesting discussion in the CB this morning. It led much further into possible changes in the consideration and approval systems, but some of the participants did not feel they were ready for a permanent node about that aspect of it.

One thing that came out was the notion that the author of a node shouldn't be able to control its disposition. In other words, the same way that you can't vote on your own nodes, you wouldn't be able to approve, front-page, or consider your own nodes. And if your node was up for consideration, you couldn't vote on it there either.
One side discussion was how to present the interface to say, "You have consideration power, but not on this one."

What do you think, fellow monks? Would this improve the quality of life at our beloved monastery? Would it only make more work for editors?

I think I'd like to see this feature, although I hesitate to recommend change for a system that I think works pretty well overall. My feelings seem to be based strictly on symmetry: if you can't vote on your own nodes, seems like you shouldn't be able to do the other things either.

And as I mentioned at the top of the node, this did lead to the subject of "Should we make radical changes to approval and consideration?" But that's a subject for another time.

For some time now I have avoided approving my own nodes (which automatically precludes front-paging). Its my personal belief that this is a better way, for me, for contributing to the site.

Most people who can approve nodes have been around for some time so they should have a good idea of what should be approved and considered and what should not. Its very rare that someone makes a mistake and if they do the community is there to lend a helping hand.

Since Simon.Proctor has posted his views above, I think I'll post mine as a kind of counterpoint.

I can see times when it's well-worth Friar+'s approving their own nodes, but such times are few and far between and with the number of Friar+'s about now it shouldn't be too tricky to get another to approve it quickly.

Removing the ability to affect your own nodes does make sense, and I don't think the interface issue is too great to be honest. Just include a bit explaining that you can't affect your own nodes in the introduction to Consideration texts and all will be good. What if someone hasn't read these? Well, in that case should they really be approving any nodes let along their own?

I am now a Friar, I've still not read the approval, consideration instructions and so on. I intend to before I do any approval or consideration, but for now I feel I'm still too new here to really do anything like this.

So far I haven't yet posted any root nodes whatsoever, but when I do I intend not to approve my own. I see it as standing up in a meeting and proposing a motion, then sitting down, then standing up again and seconding it.

If the node is good it will run without you repeatedly hitting it with the stick.

...author of a node shouldn't be able to control its
disposition. In other words, the same way that you can't
vote on your own nodes, you wouldn't be able to approve,
front-page, or consider your own nodes.

I can't think of a "good" reason to approve or frontpage
one of my own nodes off the top of my head, but IMO it's
useful for authors to be able to consider their own nodes.
I've seen quite a few Nodes to Consider where the author
double-posts, realizes his mistake, and immediately puts
the dupe up for reaping, saving someone else the trouble of
poking through both nodes, muttering "Is this really a
duplicate, or do I just need another cup of coffee?"

And if your node was up for consideration, you couldn't
vote on it there either.

Strongly agree.

I'd also support preventing the monk who considers a
node from voting on the consideration, which has always
struck me as vaguely dishonest.

I've seen quite a few Nodes to Consider where the author double-posts, realizes his mistake, and immediately puts the dupe up for reaping, saving someone else the trouble ...

The ability to clean up after onself is an important one. Double posts happen, even more now that the server hiccups more. If we make any changes to consideration, I hope that we would retain the ability to consider/vote-to-delete our own nodes.

I tend to agree with VSarkiss, but not mainly for the reason of symmetry.

Perlmonks IMO is a community, where the community (or the designated members of the community) should have the power to decide what it would like as its content, not individual authors. Just like the voting system is a social, less invasive measure of directing good content (much like cigarette warnings for smokers), the consideration for deletion is death to a node (much like smoking too much). We don't let the author have the lesser power of social steering/reward, why should we let them hold (or hold off) the community speaking in more important matters.

Frontpage - take it away, might as well. If it is worthy of frontpaging, someone *will* so that, and noone will get upset by you doing it yourself. It also saves a few new friars from doing that "mistake" (I've seen a few getting toasted for it).

Consider - trickier. Mostly it seems to be used to save oneself from downvoting, which is bad, but if it is a dupe it is more ok. OTOH, a dupe will get considered by someone else, so I feel ok by removing this possibility too.

Vote on your considered node - well, since some things seem to be based on number of votes for this or that (can someone clarify) it seems fair that you can't "save" your own node. OTOH, if it should go, it probably will get enough such votes anyway.

As long as a "good" rule can be established and enforced programatically, it is surely gonna easy the strain on the editors. But the problem lies probably in what is a "good rule". At least you have my opinions to the heap now. :)
You have moved into a dark place.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.

My concern, is that until there is a way to stop people
from having more than one account (not likely to ever
happen), there really is no way that we could ever truly
stop somebody from front-paging something they wrote if they
really wanted it front-paged. All they would need to do
is log into their second account, author a node, and then
front-page it from the first. If we remove the ability
for somebody to front-page something they authored, we
would most likely only be encouraging this sort of thing.

Regarding voting on a considered node. I guess I really
don't see why you would want to stop the author from voting
on it. When a politician votes for themselves, we don't
call that un-fair, we call it democratic. Likewise, I propose that
the author of a node should have the right to cast a vote in
opposition to whatever reason it is being considered if they
wish.

I think the same logic extends to considering nodes.
What harm comes from preventing somebody from considering
their own node? The only time I've ever seen this
done is when somebody asks to delete a dupe. Why do we
want to stop that?

With respect to multiple accounts, I suppose if you thought of it somebody else would have ;-),
at least one of the accounts would have to have reached the necessary level, specifically not
the one being frontpaged. If somebody cared this much it would seem counter-productive to split
their efforts amongst two accounts, that is unless they wished to rant with the lower one
(damn! well that cat's out of the back), otherwise such a thing would only logically pertain
to saints :-/.

As a fairly recent addition to the ranks of Friar, I'd like to add some thoughts to this issue from the perspective of "Wow! What's this Nodes to Consider thing do?"

On the aspect of an author controlling the post's disposition, I think that maybe it could be kept, but maybe adjusted as a new level power, possibly in this manner.

Approval: Hopefully, anyone at the rank of Friar knows what's going on well enough to write a node worthy of approval. I've posted a root node or two since becoming a friar, but even so I've felt weird approving my own nodes, so I leave it to someone else - but if you're sure it's a good node, may as well approve it. If someone seriously objects, they'll go ahead and consider it.

Front-page: I've seen people approve their own nodes so far, but I don't think I've seen anyone front-page their own stuff. It seems a bit odd to give someone the power to put their own document to the front - maybe give front-paging to all friars, but move front-paging of your own nodes to level 7 or 8.

Consider: Yeah, we should be able to consider our own nodes. When I first read this, I was like "What the heck? Why would you write a node and then consider it?" - then I read about considering an accidental dupe, and so it seems okay to me.

Voting on your own node up for consideration: This issue I find a little bit odder - maybe make it so that if you're the one who put the node up for consideration, you can put a vote on it. Also, maybe if someone else is the one who put it up for consideration, you can post a vote, but also be required to add a small blurb stating as to why you voted as such. If someone accuses you of writing a bad node, or something with problems, it seems fair to me to allow for a rebuttal, and maybe even require it. Not sure if it'd make a big difference, but would be interesting to see.

Overall, I think that the approve/frontpage/consideration system is a very nice thing - I really didn't know much about it before I was a friar. It makes me feel like a more active member of the community, knowing that I have a stronger voice, now that I've progressed some.

I also think that the system works really well as-is now, because most people use their common sense about approving/frontpaging/considering their own nodes, seeing as attaining the rank of Friar takes more than just sitting around for months. =) Overall, we do a fairly good job of policing ourselves.

When putting a smiley right before a closing parenthesis, do you:

Use two parentheses: (Like this: :) )
Use one parenthesis: (Like this: :)
Reverse direction of the smiley: (Like this: (: )
Use angle/square brackets instead of parentheses
Use C-style commenting to set the smiley off from the closing parenthesis
Make the smiley a dunce: (:>
I disapprove of emoticons
Other